Greatest Warrior Culture In History?

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

New Englanders.

I'm currently reading a book about the American Revolution in Massachusetts. A lot of book is compiled using primary-source accounts of what happened (as in things that were written by the people there).

The minutemen were stone cold badasses. Some of the things they did to loyalists and British regulars were intense.

But it does not even compare to what the Huns or the Cossacks did.

[Shaggai]

Protip: Cockroaches are a different species than any dinosaur. The Greek city states were comprised of humans. Bad comparison is bad.

ok you are right, it was a bad comparison but you get the point, only because they were defeaten by other Greek City doesn't mean they are bad.
Mongols were good and lost...
Romans were good and lost...

Mongols didn't lose to outside invaders, they broke apart from within. They didn't ever truly "lose" in the same way Rome or Sparta did.

More in 25 than Rome did in 400. 'Nuff said.

Rome lasted. The mongol conquests didn't last that long.

25 years. I don't care what you say, 25 years. Mongols were superior.

[Trollgaard]

Um. Excuse me, but what on Earth are you smoking? The Roman Army did NOT conquer 2/3rds of the Asian Continent.

They did conquer 2/3 of Europe and the only part of Asia they conquered was turkey down to Israel

The held Mesopotamia for a while, too.

[Trollgaard]

ok you are right, it was a bad comparison but you get the point, only because they were defeaten by other Greek City doesn't mean they are bad.
Mongols were good and lost...
Romans were good and lost...

Mongols didn't lose to outside invaders, they broke apart from within. They didn't ever truly "lose" in the same way Rome or Sparta did.

Rome lasted. The mongol conquests didn't last that long.

25 years. I don't care what you say, 25 years. Mongols were superior.

Not really. They'd lose to the Romans if they had lived at the same time. They'd win some battles, for sure, but they would never beat Rome.

[Frisivisia]

Mongols didn't lose to outside invaders, they broke apart from within. They didn't ever truly "lose" in the same way Rome or Sparta did.
25 years. I don't care what you say, 25 years. Mongols were superior.

Not really. They'd lose to the Romans if they had lived at the same time. They'd win some battles, for sure, but they would never beat Rome.

The Parthians beat Rome with the same tactics.

[The New Lowlands]

Mongols didn't lose to outside invaders, they broke apart from within. They didn't ever truly "lose" in the same way Rome or Sparta did.
25 years. I don't care what you say, 25 years. Mongols were superior.

Not really. They'd lose to the Romans if they had lived at the same time. They'd win some battles, for sure, but they would never beat Rome.

Horse archers.

They would, IMO.

[Trollgaard]

Not really. They'd lose to the Romans if they had lived at the same time. They'd win some battles, for sure, but they would never beat Rome.

The Parthians beat Rome with the same tactics.

And Rome beat the Parthians and Sassanids/Sassanians a lot, too. Carrahae is not the whole story.

Parthians never threatened the heartland of Rome. Rome sacked Parthian cities in campaign after campaign.

[Trollgaard]

Not really. They'd lose to the Romans if they had lived at the same time. They'd win some battles, for sure, but they would never beat Rome.

Horse archers.

They would, IMO.

Who would what?

[Anachronous Rex]

The greatest warrior culture that got roundly beaten by a wimpy little city-state that the Spartans inadvertently taught to fight by repeatedly invading it.

You're a dinossaur.. you were beaten by a meteor, Cocroaches survived it, you didn't. Does that meen the T-Rex is less dangerous than a Cocroach?

No. It means that you should never play "rock, paper, meteor" with a cockroach.

[The New Lowlands]

Horse archers.

They would, IMO.

Who would what?

The Mongols would beat Rome. Perhaps not conquer the city itself, but certainly break the Empire.

[Estruia]

Um. Excuse me, but what on Earth are you smoking? The Roman Army did NOT conquer 2/3rds of the Asian Continent.

They did conquer 2/3 of Europe and the only part of Asia they conquered was turkey down to Israel

2/3rds of Europe is a hell of a lot smaller than 2/3rds of Asia... There is a huge difference.

[Anachronous Rex]

They did conquer 2/3 of Europe and the only part of Asia they conquered was turkey down to Israel

2/3rds of Europe is a hell of a lot smaller than 2/3rds of Asia... There is a huge difference.

Plus, I'm pretty sure that they didn't conquer 2/3 of Europe. I'd be surprised if they even held half.

[Trollgaard]

Who would what?

The Mongols would beat Rome. Perhaps not conquer the city itself, but certainly break the Empire.

I disagree. Rome face similar armies with mixed success, they'd lose some battles and win some battles. Even if it came down to attrition, the Romans would win hands down. Rome had more people, and Roman armies and commanders, obviously, became more affective the more battles they fight. Rome would win because of massive manpower reserves, a victory or death attitude to war, good soldiers and tactics, allies that fill in the gaps to their short comings (lack of cavalry, for example).

Mongols wouldn't win outside the steppes. And Rome most likely wouldn't fight them on the steppes more than once or twice. And even if two armies were lost out on the steppes, new armies would be raised and/or moved from different areas of the empire.

[The New Lowlands]

The Mongols would beat Rome. Perhaps not conquer the city itself, but certainly break the Empire.

I disagree. Rome face similar armies with mixed success, they'd lose some battles and win some battles. Even if it came down to attrition, the Romans would win hands down. Rome had more people, and Roman armies and commanders, obviously, became more affective the more battles they fight. Rome would win because of massive manpower reserves, a victory or death attitude to war, good soldiers and tactics, allies that fill in the gaps to their short comings (lack of cavalry, for example).

Mongols wouldn't win outside the steppes. And Rome most likely wouldn't fight them on the steppes more than once or twice. And even if two armies were lost out on the steppes, new armies would be raised and/or moved from different areas of the empire.

Considering the Mongols held sway over the world's most populous nation, I wouldn't say that they would run out of men before the Romans.

[Shaggai]

The Mongols would beat Rome. Perhaps not conquer the city itself, but certainly break the Empire.

I disagree. Rome face similar armies with mixed success, they'd lose some battles and win some battles. Even if it came down to attrition, the Romans would win hands down. Rome had more people, and Roman armies and commanders, obviously, became more affective the more battles they fight. Rome would win because of massive manpower reserves, a victory or death attitude to war, good soldiers and tactics, allies that fill in the gaps to their short comings (lack of cavalry, for example).

Mongols wouldn't win outside the steppes. And Rome most likely wouldn't fight them on the steppes more than once or twice. And even if two armies were lost out on the steppes, new armies would be raised and/or moved from different areas of the empire.

Here's what Nazis in Space had to say.

Not so. Whilst I would never diminish the reputation of the Roman Legionaries, which is well deserved-they have a very poor record against armored horse archers; they suffered terrible defeats against the Parthians because of the heavy infantry legions inability to be mobile enough to effectively tackle the Parthian Cataphracts. They suffered their most famous defeat against the Parthians when Crassus lost and was killed by a numerically inferior Parthian force.

And the Mongols are essentially Parthians in terms of combat, favouring highly mobile horse archers. I can't see why the Romans would be any more successfuly against the Mongols than they were against the Parthians.

EDIT: The famous battle in question http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Carrhae that evidences the inability of the heavy infantry legions to successfully defeat the horse archers of the Parthians.

Actually, their record against horse archery is much better than often claimed - Trajan wouldn't have conquered most of Parthia if this wasn't the case. Carrhae was the combination of an incompetent commander and incredibly good Parthian supply lines - far better than was usual. And the Romans still managed to hold out for a day and engage in an orderly retreat until their commander was killed.

The thing with arrows is - they're not actually very deadly. As a consequence, they were rarely used as a decisive weapon, but rather as a means to open the engagement, and to provide firesupport. The decisive blow was generally achieved in melee - and neither the parthians (Notice the use of cataphracts) nor the Mongols (Heavy, lance-armed cavalry tended to be used to decisively win battles) were exceptions in this.

A Roman loss to a Mongol force would be inevitable - but not because of horse archers. They could weather that storm. It'd be because the Mongols tended to tackle armies like the Roman one not by head-on engagements - that wouldn't have been very successful -, but by using their superior mobility to encircle them, to follow them or retreat depending on how the situation developed, to cut off supplies, to make them nervous, to do everything in their might to cause their opponents to lose discipline and panic, and to wait until they found favourable terrain on which to give battle - only then they'd strike, typically using arrow-showers to (Again) divide formations, and to then rush them with melee units. It is worth noting that the farther west the Mongols went (Which is synonymous with the more armoured their opponents became), the more they changed their melee weapons to deal with this, relying increasingly on blunt force weapons precisely to be able to keep doing this.

Waiting for weeks before giving battle? No big deal. The Mongols were patient guys. Though I question the probability of the Roman pilum being able to stop a lancer charge on stirrups - but why even risk anything?

All of this while at the same time making sure that they were allied with every single neighbor the Romans had - people often forget that the Mongols prepared their invasions by allying with everyone and their dog before invading. They allied with the Sung before invading the Jin, they allied with the caliphate before invading Khwarezem, they allied with Armenia before invading the Caliphate, and the invasion of Europe is pretty much the only exception, as they only allied with the Byzantines afterwards (Okay, they didn't have any big alliances before invading the Sung, either - but that was because there was no-one left to ally with. Everyone else was already conquered).

There were many, many horse-archer armies throughout history. Mostly, their combat records are moderately dubious. The mongols were an exception not on account of their archers, but on account of their discipline and tactics, their diplomatic skills, their ability to do more than just fire arrows.

[Libertarian California]

New Englanders.

I'm currently reading a book about the American Revolution in Massachusetts. A lot of book is compiled using primary-source accounts of what happened (as in things that were written by the people there).

The minutemen were stone cold badasses. Some of the things they did to loyalists and British regulars were intense.

But it does not even compare to what the Huns or the Cossacks did.

But the New Englanders also made whiskey, so...

[Trollgaard]

I disagree. Rome face similar armies with mixed success, they'd lose some battles and win some battles. Even if it came down to attrition, the Romans would win hands down. Rome had more people, and Roman armies and commanders, obviously, became more affective the more battles they fight. Rome would win because of massive manpower reserves, a victory or death attitude to war, good soldiers and tactics, allies that fill in the gaps to their short comings (lack of cavalry, for example).

Mongols wouldn't win outside the steppes. And Rome most likely wouldn't fight them on the steppes more than once or twice. And even if two armies were lost out on the steppes, new armies would be raised and/or moved from different areas of the empire.

Considering the Mongols held sway over the world's most populous nation, I wouldn't say that they would run out of men before the Romans.

That was later, though. And how the hell are the mongols going to get a million chinese to fight Rome? March them? How will they feed them?

Rome had logistics down, I don't believe the Mongols came close to their level of logistical capacity. To my knowledge to Mongols lived of the land, which is great, but what happens when they get out of the steppes? They'll have hard time feeding their horses, that's what.

Mongols could hurt the empire, but they couldn't bring it to its knees as the distance would be too great, and supplies wouldn't be there.

Rome would learn from a defeat, and fight them to a standstill. Rome would also have the advantage of interior lines of supply...reinforcments and supplies would have to travel much less distances.

I really don't think the Mongols would have a chance of defeating Rome outside of a few battles. Rome would endure, outlast, and learn. As they did with Carthage. Just to prevent any reedonkulous replies: I'm not saying the Mongols and Carthaginians were similar in any way except that Rome would react as they did to the Carthaginians in regards to the Mongols.

All the Romans would need to to would be to win a battle or two against the mongols, and then they'd be fine for a couple years until more mongols came...or didn't. As the mongols had a large empire, and there weren't enough mongols to enforce their rule for very long on most of it.

[The New Lowlands]

Considering the Mongols held sway over the world's most populous nation, I wouldn't say that they would run out of men before the Romans.

That was later, though. And how the hell are the mongols going to get a million chinese to fight Rome? March them? How will they feed them?

Rome had logistics down, I don't believe the Mongols came close to their level of logistical capacity. To my knowledge to Mongols lived of the land, which is great, but what happens when they get out of the steppes? They'll have hard time feeding their horses, that's what.

Mongols could hurt the empire, but they couldn't bring it to its knees as the distance would be too great, and supplies wouldn't be there.

Rome would learn from a defeat, and fight them to a standstill. Rome would also have the advantage of interior lines of supply...reinforcments and supplies would have to travel much less distances.

I really don't think the Mongols would have a chance of defeating Rome outside of a few battles. Rome would endure, outlast, and learn. As they did with Carthage. Just to prevent any reedonkulous replies: I'm not saying the Mongols and Carthaginians were similar in any way except that Rome would react as they did to the Carthaginians in regards to the Mongols.

All the Romans would need to to would be to win a battle or two against the mongols, and then they'd be fine for a couple years until more mongols came...or didn't. As the mongols had a large empire, and there weren't enough mongols to enforce their rule for very long on most of it.

You know what? NIS is much better at arguing this than me.

[OMGeverynameistaken]

Most of the population in the "most populous nation" which the Mongols ruled was also in constant revolt. I'm fairly familiar with the Mongol Yoke in Russia, and I can tell you the Slavs didn't just roll over after the initial conquest. There was a major rebellion every fifty years or so, generally.

And its status as a united entity only lasted for ~10 years, as I recall. After that it split into the 4 major hordes and about ten million minor khannates.

[Estruia]

Most of the population in the "most populous nation" which the Mongols ruled was also in constant revolt. I'm fairly familiar with the Mongol Yoke in Russia, and I can tell you the Slavs didn't just roll over after the initial conquest. There was a major rebellion every fifty years or so, generally.

And its status as a united entity only lasted for ~10 years, as I recall. After that it split into the 4 major hordes and about ten million minor khannates.

I don't think they were talking about Russia... It wasn't exactly the most populous area at that time.

[The New Lowlands]

Most of the population in the "most populous nation" which the Mongols ruled was also in constant revolt. I'm fairly familiar with the Mongol Yoke in Russia, and I can tell you the Slavs didn't just roll over after the initial conquest. There was a major rebellion every fifty years or so, generally.

And its status as a united entity only lasted for ~10 years, as I recall. After that it split into the 4 major hordes and about ten million minor khannates.

Uh, Russia wasn't the most populous nation. By far.

[Trollgaard]

Most of the population in the "most populous nation" which the Mongols ruled was also in constant revolt. I'm fairly familiar with the Mongol Yoke in Russia, and I can tell you the Slavs didn't just roll over after the initial conquest. There was a major rebellion every fifty years or so, generally.

And its status as a united entity only lasted for ~10 years, as I recall. After that it split into the 4 major hordes and about ten million minor khannates.

Not to mention that Rome was much more powerful than the Russian princes, and much farther away than China.

I think Rome would have be the nut that the mongols couldn't crack.

[Trollgaard]

Most of the population in the "most populous nation" which the Mongols ruled was also in constant revolt. I'm fairly familiar with the Mongol Yoke in Russia, and I can tell you the Slavs didn't just roll over after the initial conquest. There was a major rebellion every fifty years or so, generally.

And its status as a united entity only lasted for ~10 years, as I recall. After that it split into the 4 major hordes and about ten million minor khannates.

I don't think they were talking about Russia... It wasn't exactly the most populous area at that time.

OMG wasn't talking about Russia, either...he brought Russia up after referencing China.

[Greed and Death]

The goths they sacked the eternal city of roman.
Everyone else either did it before or after it was the eternal city.

Greatest achievement in human history the Sack of Rome was.

[OMGeverynameistaken]

Most of the population in the "most populous nation" which the Mongols ruled was also in constant revolt. I'm fairly familiar with the Mongol Yoke in Russia, and I can tell you the Slavs didn't just roll over after the initial conquest. There was a major rebellion every fifty years or so, generally.

And its status as a united entity only lasted for ~10 years, as I recall. After that it split into the 4 major hordes and about ten million minor khannates.

Uh, Russia wasn't the most populous nation. By far.

Russia was just an example of an area that suffered major revolts against Mongol rule. There were similar issues in China, with various Song dynasty pretenders popping up. The Song dynasty wasn't even fully eliminated until long after Genghis Khan died. IIRC they were finally taken out for good around the time the Mongol Empire split into four.